Thieves arrested (upon the complaint of a party) in the city in possession of stolen goods may be judged in city court, before coroners and bailiffs. The same applies even if the theft was committed outside the city, so long as a complainant subsequently comes forward. If there is no complainant, the city is not to try the thieves, but is to hold them in prison until the justices of gaol delivery come to try these cases in the city court. The bailiffs are not to instigate a false complaint in such a case. If the harbourer of such a thief can be found in the city, and the thief is convicted and it is determined that the harbourer was aware of the thief's crime, the harbourer can also be judged by the city court.
[Hudson speculated that the concern with ensuring there was a complainant prepared to prosecute a suit against a felon may have been prompted by a case in 1285, when the leet jury accused Walter Eghe of being a thief, and he was subsequently brought into city court and convicted through an inquest, although there was no individual prosecuting a complaint against him. He was then hung but, still alive when taken off the gallows, fled to sanctuary and successfully petitioned the king for a pardon. The king demanded to know by what authority the city court had tried the case without a complainant or without Walter having been arrested in possession of stolen goods. A satisfactory answer apparently not being forthcoming, the king withdrew the city liberties, obliging the citizens to buy them back through a new royal charter. Hudson further notes that the king's Justices were, in 1326, required to hold their sessions only in the county court, suggesting that this chapter was drafted before that date.]